LCACs and tsunami support?

Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think that the
LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task of getting
supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep enough -- or still
functioning).

Just curious.

Mike

Mike Bandor wrote:
Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think
that the LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task
of getting supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep
enough -- or still functioning).

There are LCACs in the Bonhomme Richard ESG, which is either already
assisting or is on the way to assist.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

"Mike Bandor" wrote:

Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think that the
LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task of getting
supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep enough -- or still
functioning).

Just curious.

First reaction would be that you're talking mixed blessing here.
Fine, if all of the supplies needed are transported
in/crossdecked to LHAs/LHDs/LPDs/LSDs for loading onto the LCACs
in their well-decks. Otherwise, use of LCACs would require the
supplies to be offloaded by crane as they lay alongside the cargo
ship bringing the supplies. [Which also begs the question of how
many break bulk cargo ships are left in this container era? And
how many standard containers can an LCAC carry? Will the onshore
relief effort have the capability/manpower needed to handle and
unload containers brought in by LCAC instead of unloaded at a
port? Will they be able to handle even break bulk cargo brought
in by LCACs?]

This is not to gainsay the benefits the availability of some
LCACs may offer in the relief efforts, but to warn against
overestimating their ultimate value. LCACs work best/most
efficiently coupled with the gator navy ships they were designed
to be deployed aboard/from.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

Have not seen them , But the Bonnie Dick Amphib Group almost certainly
has them . Along with LCUs and LCM8s .

"Ogden Johnson III" wrote in message
...
"Mike Bandor" wrote:

Do we have any LCACs supporting the relief efforts? I would think that
the
LCACs would be suited very well to handle part of the task of getting
supplies on-shore (no need for an airstrip or port deep enough -- or
still
functioning).

Just curious.

First reaction would be that you're talking mixed blessing here.
Fine, if all of the supplies needed are transported
in/crossdecked to LHAs/LHDs/LPDs/LSDs for loading onto the LCACs
in their well-decks. Otherwise, use of LCACs would require the
supplies to be offloaded by crane as they lay alongside the cargo
ship bringing the supplies. [Which also begs the question of how
many break bulk cargo ships are left in this container era? And
how many standard containers can an LCAC carry? Will the onshore
relief effort have the capability/manpower needed to handle and
unload containers brought in by LCAC instead of unloaded at a
port? Will they be able to handle even break bulk cargo brought
in by LCACs?]

This is not to gainsay the benefits the availability of some
LCACs may offer in the relief efforts, but to warn against
overestimating their ultimate value. LCACs work best/most
efficiently coupled with the gator navy ships they were designed
to be deployed aboard/from.
--

They would indeed be more appropriate to ferry supplies further inland from
port facilities (probably improvised port facilities) to areas that can't be
reached by trucks (and then specifically to carry loads too heavy for
helicopters).

Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the
ground was too soft for landing, and also saw supplies being tossed out
the door from a hover.
Walt BJ

wrote:
Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the
ground was too soft for landing, and also saw supplies being tossed out
the door from a hover.

Just a couple educated guesses, but-

It probably depends on the distance they need to carry the loads.
Slinging isn't very effective past a few miles, you usually can't fly
as fast with a slung load.

Then there's the "retrograde:" the cargo net, hook, and other tackle.
You eventually need to bring this back with you to reuse it because
most ships don't have _that_ much of it. Somebody else in this
thread mentioned the difficulty of moving a whole pallet in soft
ground. You can use straps through the frame of the pallet to
support it from a cargo hook, but laying out a cargo net and placing
the pallet on top of that is also common. So now how do the folks on
the ground receiving the cargo get the cargo net out from underneath
(easily and efficiently again and again)?

Anyway, just a couple ideas. I'm a helicopter guy, but never did
much vertrep. I could ask some friends who did for more educated
guesses though

----------
In article .com,
wrote:

Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the

They are. There was a report in the news that one of the slings gave way
and dropped its cargo on a car in a parking lot in Indonesia. The
Indonesian government then told the Navy to no longer use sling loads.



D

D wrote:
----------
In article .com,
wrote:


Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the


They are. There was a report in the news that one of the slings gave way
and dropped its cargo on a car in a parking lot in Indonesia. The
Indonesian government then told the Navy to no longer use sling loads.

Well, this is a better answer than my previous guesses!

Since you didn't mention it, can we assume no one was hurt or killed,
hopefully only property damage?

wrote:

Speaking of helicopters, how come they're not sling-loading
nets/pallets of supplies? Saw on TV someone saying in some places the
ground was too soft for landing, and also saw supplies being tossed out
the door from a hover.

Jim Carriere has hit one main reason, which I'd like to expand
on. D has IDed one of the other pitfalls that can happen with
external loads, particularly in the absence of HSTs on the
ground.

Helicopter Support Teams - trained guys and gals on the ground
supporting heavy duty external load operations are a must. Even
though most grunts likely to be on the receiving end of external
loads learn the basics, Red Cross relief workers and other good
samaritans on the receiving end of these supply transports may
not have any experience. And the time to get that training and
experience is not when you've got a section of helos coming in
with 10K - 20K lbs of stuff each on a sling.
--
OJ III
[Email to Yahoo address may be burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]